Well, I've only got four minutes, so I don't think I can, thank you.

In the same conference, Paul Ehrlich, a renowned doomster on population, said that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the great die-off, and 50 years later, he's still at it. In The Guardian on 22 March this year, he's now saying, 

'A shattering collapse of civilisation is a "near certainty" in the next few decades due to humanity’s continuing destruction of the natural world'.

So, I'm afraid, regardless of the extent to which predictions depart from reality, these people just never give up, do they?

Life magazine in 1970 reported that,

'Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half'.

And I could go on and on and on. Well, here are the facts: since 1850, the global temperature has increased by 0.9 of a degree centigrade, and half of that increase took place before 1950 when it's generally accepted that the manmade global warming—even if you believe the science—that is said to be behind it could not have been the cause.

Of course, what these predictions fail to cope with is more recent temperature data, because since the great global cooling scare ended in 1975, there has been the following: until 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise roughly in conjunction with one another, but then, in 1998, there started a 20-year pause in increases in world temperature, whilst global carbon dioxide figures went up and up and up, and until 2015 or 2016, they were flat. Nobody has quite explained how it is that these predictions fail to cope with the reality of temperatures that are recorded by actual observation. In 2015-16, there was more warming, but in 2017-18, there was more cooling, and now, average global temperatures are actually 1 degree Fahrenheit below the computer model predictions. So, how do you explain the pause? How can you predict with confidence that, in 12 years, there will be an increase in world temperatures of 1.5 degrees, when the experience of the last 50 years proves the opposite?

There are, of course, loads of other alarmist forecasts, which I don't have time to debunk—